EPA Not Effectively Implementing the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Report No. 19-P-0302 September 9, 2019

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Ensuring the safety of chemicals

Report Contributors: Sarah Davidson

Jeffrey Harris

Natasha Henry

Chad Kincheloe

Barry Parker

Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMS Compliance Monitoring Strategy

EJ 2020 Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FY Fiscal Year

NPMG National Program Manager Guidance

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG Office of Inspector General

RRP Renovation, Repair and Painting

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S.C. United States Code

Cover Photo: House with lead paint undergoing renovation. (EPA photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an EPA program? EPA Inspector General Hotline 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T) Washington, DC 20460 (888) 546-8740 (202) 566-2599 (fax) OIG_Hotline@epa.gov Learn more about our OIG Hotline.

EPA Office of Inspector General 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T) Washington, DC 20460 (202) 566-2391 www.epa.gov/oig Subscribe to our Email Updates Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig Send us your Project Suggestions

19-P-0302 September 9, 2019

Why We Did This Project The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine whether the EPA has an effective strategy to implement and enforce the lead-based paint rule. The EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule is intended to protect the public by addressing hazards associated with renovation, repair and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint in specific housing and child-occupied facilities. Lead-based paint was used in an estimated 38 million homes prior to its ban for residential use in 1978. Renovation, repair and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous exposures to lead. In children, exposure to lead can cause health problems, including the potential for slower growth, lower IQ and behavioral problems. This report addresses the following:

• Ensuring the safety of chemicals.

Address inquiries to our public affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or OIG_WEBPOSTINGS@epa.gov.

List of OIG reports.

EPA Not Effectively Implementing the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule What We Found The EPA does not have an effective strategy to implement and enforce the lead-based paint rule. Specifically:

• The EPA does not have sufficient controls to assess RRP program effectiveness and progress toward goals. The agency does not review regional targeting strategies, track RRP resources and outreach activities, review inspections, or evaluate progress toward reducing disparities in blood lead levels among children.

• There is insufficient coordination and communication between the two EPA program offices primarily responsible for the RRP program—the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

• EPA regions could benefit from sharing regionally developed tools, ideas and approaches.

The issues noted above occurred because program guidance does not sufficiently define RRP program objectives, goals and measurable outcomes to track progress and determine accountability. Without an effective strategy for the RRP program, the EPA cannot determine whether the program is achieving its intended purpose to protect the public, particularly related to specific housing and child-occupied facilities.

Recommendations and Agency Response We recommend that the EPA identify the regulated universe for the RRP program; update current program guidance; establish management oversight controls as well as objectives, goals and measurable outcomes; and establish a forum to share best practices and innovations. We consider two of our six recommendations resolved with corrective actions pending, while four recommendations are unresolved.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Effective oversight and enforcement are needed to further reduce lead exposures from renovation, repair and painting activities.

September 9, 2019

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Not Effectively Implementing the

Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

Report No. 19-P-0302

FROM: Charles J. Sheehan, Deputy Inspector General

TO: Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this audit was

OA&E-FY18-0162. This report contains findings that describe problems the OIG identified and

corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report presents the opinion of the OIG and does not

necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made

by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

Action Required

We consider Recommendations 1 through 4, addressed to the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance, to be unresolved. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, the resolution

process begins immediately with the issuance of the report. We are requesting a meeting within 30 days

between the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the OIG’s

Assistant Inspector General for Audit and Evaluation. If resolution is not reached, the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is required to complete and submit a dispute resolution request

to the Chief Financial Officer.

For Recommendations 5 and 6, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention provided

acceptable corrective actions and milestone dates. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, both

recommendations are resolved and no further response is required. However, if you submit a response, it

will be posted on the OIG’s website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your

response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data

that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should

identify the data for redaction or removal along with corresponding justification.

We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

EPA Not Effectively Implementing 19-P-0302 the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 Responsible Offices ................................................................................... 6 Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 6 Prior Report ............................................................................................... 7 2 EPA Lacks Effective Strategy to Implement and Enforce the RRP Program ................................................................................ 8

EPA Lacks Controls to Define and Track Program Objectives and Goals ........................................................... 8 RRP Strategies Not Coordinated ............................................................... 13 Program Staff Innovations Not Being Shared ............................................. 15 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 16 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 16 Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ..................................................... 17

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 18

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report ................................................................... 19 B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 25

19-P-0302 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) conducted this audit to determine whether the EPA has an

effective strategy to implement and enforce the lead-based paint rule.

Background

Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

The EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule1 is intended to

protect the public by addressing hazards associated with renovation, repair and

painting activities in target housing2 and child-occupied facilities3 that disturb

lead-based paint. The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of

1992 and Sections 402 and 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

authorized the creation of the RRP Rule, which was issued in 2008 and amended

in 2010.

The RRP Rule established a three-pronged program consisting of regulation,

compliance enforcement and education/outreach. Firms conducting RRP projects

that disturb lead-based paint are subject to EPA enforcement and compliance

monitoring inspections and must:

• Be certified by the EPA.

• Use certified renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training

providers.

• Follow lead safe work practices.

Education and outreach efforts are focused on owners of child-occupied facilities,

homeowners and renters in areas with older housing, vulnerable populations and

renovation firms.

1 For this report, we use the terms lead-based paint rule, RRP Rule, and the RRP program interchangeably when

referring to the Lead Renovation Repair and Painting Rule. 2 Target housing is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2681(17) as any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for

elderly persons or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of

age resides or is expected to reside in such housing). 3 A child-occupied facility is defined under the rule as a building, or portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978,

visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within any week (Sunday

through Saturday period), provided that each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at

least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied facilities may include, but are not

limited to, day care centers, preschools and kindergarten classrooms. Child-occupied facilities may be located in

target housing or in public or commercial buildings. (40 CFR §§ 745.83 and 745.223)

19-P-0302 2

In 2010, the RRP program’s regulated universe was estimated to comprise of

approximately 320,000 renovators who performed approximately 18 million

renovation, repair and painting projects annually.4

Health Risks from Lead Paint

Lead-based paint was used in an estimated 38 million homes in the United States

prior to its ban for residential use in 1978. Older homes are more likely to contain

lead-based paint. Approximately 87 percent of homes built before 1940 have

some lead-based paint, while 24 percent of homes built between 1960 and 1978

have some lead-based paint.

Figure 1: Prevalent period when housing was built

Source: Census Atlas of the United States Census 2000 Special Reports.

4 The EPA-estimated renovators and renovations population includes regulated entities covered by both the

2008 RRP Rule and the 2010 amendment.

19-P-0302 3

The EPA’s RRP program is a key element in the EPA’s efforts to reduce the

prevalence of childhood lead poisoning, particularly lead poisoning caused by

housing contaminated by renovation activities. According to the “Childhood Lead

Poisoning Prevention” webpage of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health, lead-based paint and

lead-contaminated household dust together are a major source of lead exposure

for children. Common renovation, repair and painting activities that disturb lead-

based paint (such as sanding, cutting and replacing windows) can create

hazardous lead dust and chips that can be harmful to adults and children.

In children, exposure to lead can cause health problems, including the potential

for slower growth, lower IQ and behavioral problems. In adults, lead exposure

may result in poor pregnancy outcomes, memory problems and high blood

pressure.

Lead Risks Addressed in EPA’s Environmental Justice Program

Lead exposure to children is addressed in the EPA’s Environmental Justice 2020

Action Agenda (EJ 2020) that is designed to meet the environmental and public

health challenges confronting the nation’s minority, low-income, tribal and

indigenous populations. One priority of EJ 2020 is to eliminate disparities in

childhood blood lead levels in low-income children compared to non-low-income

children. EJ 2020 states the EPA will develop strategies to:

• Educate communities on sources of lead contamination and the health

effects of lead.

• Raise awareness of lead-based paint exposure and prevention tactics.

• Increase efforts to ensure adequate lead-based paint workforces

(e.g., inspectors, contractors, trainers, etc.).

The EPA committed to track disparities of blood lead levels as a measure of

progress.

Federal Action Plan to Reduce Children’s Exposure to Lead

In furtherance of Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks, the EPA,

working with other federal agencies,

developed a federal strategy to reduce

childhood lead exposure and associated health

effects, commonly referred to in the news

media as the “war on lead.” The Federal

Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead

Exposures and Associated Health Impacts

(Federal Action Plan) was released in

“Lead exposure is a significant health and safety threat to children across the country. EPA is committed to taking action to address this threat, and improve health outcomes for our nation’s most vulnerable citizens – our children.”

– Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, February 5, 2018

19-P-0302 4

December 2018. The Federal Action Plan is the product of the President’s Task

Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. The plan is a

blueprint for reducing lead exposure through collaboration among federal

agencies and with a range of stakeholders, including states, tribes and local

communities, along with businesses, property owners and parents. The stated

purpose of the Federal Action Plan is to help federal agencies work strategically

and collaboratively to reduce exposure to lead and improve children’s health.

EPA Policy and Guidance

The implementation, enforcement and compliance of the RRP program is guided

primarily by three documents:

• The Office of Chemical Safety and

Pollution Prevention’s (OCSPP’s)

National Program Manager Guidance

(NPMG).

• The Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance’s (OECA’s)

NPMG.

• The TSCA Compliance Monitoring

Strategy (CMS).

RRP program requirements apply to firms and individuals performing renovation

work that disturbs lead-based paint during renovation, repair and painting

activities, and to training providers. The EPA RRP program provides information

to help entities comply with RRP program implementation and helps this

regulated community maintain program compliance.

Implementation

The OCSPP is primarily responsible for directing program implementation for the

RRP program in regions, authorized states and tribes.5 The fiscal years (FYs) 2016–

2017 NPMG identified lead risk-reduction as a national area of focus and directed

that EPA regions and authorized states implement eight lead program activities,

including RRP. Some example activities included RRP Rule implementation, as well

as outreach to renovators, homeowners and owners of child-occupied facilities.

OCSPP guidance also stated that the EPA is working to reduce the number of

children with blood lead levels of five micrograms per deciliter or higher, with a

long-term goal of closing the gap between the geometric mean blood lead levels

among low-income children versus non-low-income children from a baseline

percentage difference of 28.4 percent (2007–2010) to a difference of 10 percent or

less by FY 2018.

5 Fourteen states and one tribe have received EPA authorization to administer their own RRP programs.

“The NPM Guidances provide a national operational framework used by the regions, states, and tribes to implement programmatic activities protective of human health and the environment.”

– EPA’s Overview to the FYs 2018–2019 National

Program Manager Guidances

19-P-0302 5

Additionally, the OCSPP NPMG directed regional offices to provide outreach for

the RRP program, provide information and compliance assistance to the regulated

community, and coordinate implementation with OECA on lead program

regulations and activities as identified in the TSCA CMS.

The FYs 2018–2019 OCSPP NPMG did not contain any specific RRP-related

activities.

Enforcement and Compliance

OECA primarily directs enforcement and compliance for the RRP program at the

EPA regional and authorized state and tribal levels. The FYs 2016–2017 OECA

NPMG and TSCA CMS were intended to work together to direct enforcement

activities. The OECA NPMG outlined enforcement and compliance priorities,

while the CMS provided guidance for developing and implementing EPA regional

TSCA compliance monitoring programs. Specifically, the OECA NPMG

identified the national compliance and enforcement priorities, provided national

direction for all compliance assurance programs, identified activities required to

be carried out by authorized programs, and described how the EPA will work with

states and tribes to verify compliance with environmental laws.

The CMS presents an overarching (multi-year) framework and principles for

TSCA compliance monitoring. According to the CMS, the goal of targeting is to

focus on the most significant environmental problems within a priority area and

locate operations that are potentially in violation where such noncompliance may

cause, or pose a risk of, childhood lead poisoning. Targeting for the lead-based

paint program should include where an area has widespread childhood lead

poisoning (a “Lead Hot Spot”6) or is an Environmental Justice, overburdened

community.7 Regions are encouraged to concentrate their efforts in “Lead Hot

Spots.” Effective targeting requires that regions possess accurate and up-to-date

knowledge of their regulated universes. The CMS also notes that regional

compliance strategies for the RRP program should aim to promote compliance

with all the RRP requirements.

Each region is expected to have an overarching approach in allocating its

resources to confirm that the region focuses on its most significant environmental

problem(s) yet sustains essential capacity in each of its TSCA focus areas by, for

example, responding appropriately to tips and complaints.

The FYs 2016–2017 OECA NPMG stated that regions should implement program

priorities and activities, including those set out in detail in the CMS. The NPMG

6 “Lead Hot Spot” means any geographic area (or population sector) with widespread and/or severe childhood lead

poisoning. “Lead Hot Spot” generally means the same as “target area.” 7 The EPA often uses the term “overburdened” to describe situations where multiple factors, including both

environmental and socio-economic stressors, act cumulatively to affect health and the environment. This concept is

particularly useful for understanding the stressors that contribute to persistent environmental health disparities.

19-P-0302 6

further states that 90 percent of the regions’ TSCA resources should focus on the

lead compliance assurance program, and that 95 percent of the efforts in the lead

program should focus on the RRP program.

The FYs 2018–2019 OECA NPMG does not contain any RRP-specific activities.

Responsible Offices

The EPA’s national program managers for the RRP program are the OCSPP and

OECA. The OCSPP is primarily responsible for RRP program implementation,

such as outreach and education. OECA is primarily responsible for compliance

and enforcement within EPA regions. The OCSPP and OECA are also responsible

for oversight of 14 states and one tribe that have received authorization to

administer their own RRP programs.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this performance audit from May 2018 through June 2019 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and

conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained

provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions based on our objective.

To obtain an understanding of the agency’s RRP program, we reviewed federal

laws, regulations, and EPA policy and guidance documents, including:

• OECA NPMGs for FYs 2016–2017 and FYs 2018–2019.

• OCSPP NPMGs for FYs 2016–2017 and FYs 2018–2019.

• TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy.

• EJ 2020.

• RRP Program Inspection Manual.

• Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated

Health Impacts (December 2018).

We interviewed staff from the OECA’s Office of Compliance and Office of Civil

Enforcement, the OCSPP, and the Office of the Administrator’s Office of

Environmental Justice. We also interviewed RRP program managers, inspectors

and the childrens health experts in EPA’s Regions 5 and 6.

We also sent a short survey to all 10 EPA regions to inquire about RRP program

targeting strategies, funding and innovative approaches.

19-P-0302 7

Prior Report

On July 25, 2012, we issued Report No. 12-P-0600, Review of Hotline Complaint

Concerning Cost and Benefit Estimates for EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Rule.

The OIG had received a hotline complaint concerning the EPA’s 2008 Lead

Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, and conducted a review to evaluate how

the EPA determined the costs and benefits of that rule. The OIG found that

although the EPA stated that its economic analysis underwent extensive intra-

agency review and was approved by the Office of Management Budget prior to

publication, the EPA used limited data to develop its cost and benefit estimates

for the rule. Recommended corrective actions were agreed to and have been

completed.

19-P-0302 8

Chapter 2 EPA Lacks Effective Strategy to Implement and

Enforce the RRP Program

The EPA does not have an effective strategy to implement and enforce the lead-

based paint rule. We found that the regulated universe for the lead-based paint

rule program is unknown and has not been estimated in approximately a decade.

Specifically, we found that:

• The EPA lacks controls to define and track program objectives and goals.

• RRP strategies were not coordinated.

• Program staff innovations were not being shared.

The issues noted occurred because program guidance does not sufficiently define

RRP program objectives, goals and measurable outcomes to track progress and

determine accountability. As a result, the EPA cannot ensure equal and sufficient

protection of human health, particularly the prevention of childhood lead

poisoning.

EPA Lacks Controls to Define and Track Program Objectives and Goals

The EPA does not have sufficient internal controls to assess RRP program

effectiveness and progress toward goals. OECA does not review regional

targeting strategies, nor does it have up-to-date knowledge of the regulated

universe. EPA national program managers do not track RRP program resources

and outreach activities, review inspections, or evaluate progress toward reducing

disparities in childhood-elevated blood lead levels.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal

Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (September 2014), program

managers should continually seek ways to improve accountability in achieving an

entity’s mission. Internal controls comprise the plans, methods, policies and

procedures used to fulfill the goals and objectives of the entity. The Government

Accountability Office’s standards require documentation of agency activities,

which provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk

of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel, as well to communicate that

knowledge as needed to external parties. A key factor in improving accountability

is to implement an effective internal control system, which helps an entity adapt

to shifting environments, evolving demands, changing risks and new priorities.

19-P-0302 9

Regulated RRP Universe Not Known

The CMS emphasizes that effective targeting requires that EPA regions possess

accurate and up-to-date knowledge of their regulated universes (e.g., size, sectors

and compliance issues). We found that the OCSPP and OECA could not identify

or estimate a current number of renovators or renovations being conducted for

each region. Moreover, it has been approximately 10 years since the EPA

estimated the RRP program universe of renovators—which was approximately

320,000 firms conducting approximately 18 million renovations per year.

EPA’s Enforcement Office Does Not Review Regional Targeting Strategies

OECA national program managers could not identify or provide documented

strategies for any of the 10 regions for targeting “Lead Hot Spots.” Further,

OECA was not able to provide evidence of its review of any strategies. The

TSCA CMS includes some criteria for what should be included in a region’s

targeting strategy, such as:

• A balanced mix of work-site inspections.

• Training class audits.

• Record review inspections.

• Information request letters and subpoenas.

The CMS also directs EPA regions to focus their inspections on larger firms.

EPA regions used various targeting strategies. Some regions used tools such as

EJSCREEN8 and GeoPlatform9 to conduct geographic targeting. Two of the

10 regions indicated they did not have formal targeting strategies. Other regions

used lists of firms to target the largest firms in the region. Another region was

recently focused on military housing. The lack of specific OECA guidance and

national-level review of regional targeting strategies resulted in OECA relying only

on the skills and expertise of regional inspectors to target inspections rather than

targeting strategies as directed by the CMS. Without review of regional targeting

strategies, it is unclear if the regions are following the CMS criteria and targeting

approach or even have a targeting strategy.

8 The EPA’s EJSCREEN is an Environmental Justice mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a

nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. 9 The EPA’s GeoPlatform Online is a collaborative web Geographic Information System that allows EPA staff,

contractors and collaborators to create and share maps and data internally and with the public.

19-P-0302 10

EPA Not Tracking RRP Program Resources

In both the FYs 2019 and 2020 administration’s proposed EPA budgets, the lead

risk-reduction program10 was targeted for elimination and lead paint certifications

would have continued under the Chemical Risk Review Reduction program. Despite

the proposed program defunding, in FY 2019 the lead risk-reduction program

received $12.627 million and 66 full-time equivalents to address exposure to lead

from lead-based paint through regulations, certification, training programs and public

outreach efforts. OECA and OCSPP do not allocate their full-time equivalents and

budget by sub-program. We found that EPA regional staff assigned to the RRP

program also work on other EPA programs.

Regional staff indicated that limited resources have impacted their ability to

adequately implement the RRP program. Two regions noted that a significant

challenge was the immense size of the regulated universe compared to the

available resources. One regional staff member indicated that, with existing

resources, it is difficult to provide a sufficient field presence to conduct training

and inspections that broadly impact compliance. A staff member from a different

region said that a declining number of inspectors and case development officers

limits the region’s ability to adequately address the number of inspections

conducted, resulting in fewer cases developed. Additionally, a staff member from

a third region indicated that there is a significant backlog of inspections that have

not been developed into cases.

The FYs 2016-2017 OECA NPMG instructed that 90 percent of a region’s TSCA

resources should focus on the lead compliance assurance program. The NPMG

further instructed that regions should strive to concentrate 95 percent of their efforts

to the RRP program. OECA does not track how the regions use their resources

between sub-programs and therefore is unable to evaluate whether the funds are

used effectively. In addition, nine out of 10 regions were unable to provide

information regarding how their resources were used at the sub-program level.

The FYs 2018–2019 OECA NPMG does not include instructions on the use of

lead compliance assistance program resources.

EPA Not Tracking Specific RRP Program Inspections and Compliance Activities

OECA FYs 2016–2017 and FYs 2018–2019 NPMGs contain two lead-based paint

Annual Commitment System measures: (1) the number of TSCA inspections

conducted by regions broken out by the four major TSCA programs (see Figure 2)

and (2) reporting on other compliance activities by the four program areas.

10 The lead risk-reduction program includes RRP as well as the Pre-Renovation Education Rule (406), the Lead

Abatement Rule (402(a)), and the Disclosure Rule (1018).

19-P-0302 11

Figure 2: Four major TSCA programs

Source: EPA OIG based on the EPA’s FYs 2016–2017 OECA NPMG.

The contributing RRP program inspections and compliance activities are included

in the overall Annual Commitment System measures tracked as a part of the lead-

based paint measures. The Annual Commitment System measures11 for lead-based

paint are not included in the FYs 2020–2021 National Program Guidances.12

For the first measure—overall lead-based paint inspections13 conducted by

regions—we found that total lead-based paint inspections in the regions vary

greatly (see Figure 3). For example, the 5-year average of lead-based paint

inspections reported in the Integrated Compliance Information System14 for Region

10 was 184, but for Region 6 was only 18. Over the last 5 years, the average

number of lead-based paint inspections as reported in the Integrated Compliance

Information System was 1,131, or less than one-half-of-1 percent of the last

estimated universe of renovators. OECA was unable to break down lead-based

paint inspections by sub-program (e.g., RRP program). In addition, six out of 10

regions were not able to provide a breakdown of lead-based paint inspections by

sub-program level.

Figure 3: Lead-based paint inspections under TSCA by region for FYs 2014–2018

Source: OIG analysis of EPA data.

11 According to OECA and OCSPP, the Annual Commitment System has been eliminated for FYs 2020 and 2021. 12 NPMGs are being referred to as National Program Guidances in FYs 2020–2021 guidances. 13 Overall lead-based paint inspections include RRP program inspections as well as inspections conducted for the

Lead Abatement Rule, the Pre-Renovation Education Rule and the Lead Disclosure Rule. 14 The Integrated Compliance Information System is a system that allows EPA managers and staff to view current

data on trends in compliance inspections, among other things.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INSP

ECTI

ON

S

EPA REGION

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

New and Existing Chemicals

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Asbestos Lead-Based Paint

19-P-0302 12

We asked OECA the basis for determining regional RRP program inspection

projections and whether the basis included a workload assessment of regional staff.

OECA indicated that regional commitments are initiated by the regions, which are

asked by OECA to follow the NPMG and TSCA CMS when developing

commitments. A specific criterion for determining regional commitments was not

specified in OECA guidance or OECA responses to the OIG.

For the second measure—other compliance activities (which include off-site

records reviews broken out by TSCA program)—we found that OECA reported

that they did not have any FYs 2016 or 2017 reports, as this measure was not a

mandatory requirement for the regions and allowed for optional reporting of other

compliance monitoring activities.

Neither of these two measures help identify progress toward any RRP program or

other TSCA lead programs’ outcomes.

EPA Not Tracking Outreach Activities

OCSPP national program managers reported that outreach activities were being

performed, but OCSPP did not track the extent to which regions were

implementing outreach activities or resources used for implementation. The EPA

did not have measures to determine meaningful results of these activities.

The OCSPP NPMG provided specific RRP program outreach activities expected

for regions to implement, including encouraging state and tribal RRP program

authorization, providing information on the hazards of renovation activities in

homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint, and engaging with

state/city permitting and licensing officials.

Some outreach activities that the EPA reported include:

• The EPA training of 70 EPA staff, renovation contractors and citizens on

ways to address environmental health risks to children.

• EPA staff conducting in-person outreach to building permit offices in two

states to help inform contractors during the permit application process

about the RRP program requirements.

The EPA informed us that discussion of regional activities is covered in

conference calls and meetings with regional program managers. However, these

conference calls and meetings, covering RRP program activities, were only held

intermittently, and no meeting summaries were recorded. As noted earlier, federal

internal control standards require documentation of agency activities to provide

reasonable assurance that program objectives and goals are achieved, and

organizational knowledge is retained to mitigate the risk of having knowledge

limited to a few personnel.

19-P-0302 13

The FYs 2018–2019 OCSPP NPMG no longer provides specifics on activities

regions should be conducting that will contribute to providing reasonable

assurance that program objectives and goals are achieved.

EPA Does Not Evaluate Changes in Childhood Blood Level Disparities

OCSPP national program managers said they did not track measures related to

elevated blood lead levels. The RRP program is a key effort in reducing the

prevalence of childhood lead poisoning, particularly lead poisoning caused by

housing contaminated by renovation activities. While there is no safe level of lead

for children, who are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of lead exposure, the

FYs 2016–2017 OCSPP NPMG states that the EPA is working to reduce the

number of children with blood lead levels of five micrograms per deciliter or

higher. The FYs 2018–2019 OCSPP NPMG does not address this area. The EPA

EJ 2020 action agenda aims to eliminate disparities in childhood blood lead levels

as an integral part of reducing lead exposure for all people.

EJ 2020 states that the EPA determines the performance result for this measure

from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey studies designed to

assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United

States.15 EJ 2020 identifies the OCSPP as the national program manager for this

program. According to the OCSPP, it tracks and analyzes elevated blood lead

levels using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data but does

not report on measures related to elevated blood levels.

RRP Strategies Not Coordinated

OECA and OCSPP provided inconsistent responses when asked about program

goals and available guidance in the management of the RRP program. During

interviews with these offices, we received conflicting responses indicating there is

a lack of coordination and communication.

As noted previously, OCSPP did not report progress toward the stated goal of

reducing the difference in elevated blood lead levels between low-income and

non-low-income children. The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice within the

Office of the Administrator shared that it has not received updates on achieving this

goal from the OCSPP. OECA program managers indicated that they do not track

these efforts and do not have awareness on how the EPA is achieving these goals.

They further said that this was a responsibility of the OCSPP and not their own.

OCSPP program managers responded that the reduction in elevated blood lead

levels was no longer a measured goal and was not in the FYs 2018–2019 NPMG

despite it being identified as the EPA’s long-term goal in the FYs 2016–2017

15 For lead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses these data to update the lead reference level.

19-P-0302 14

NPMG. Further, OECA and OCSPP had not coordinated the tracking or

measurement of the RRP program’s outcomes.

The disconnect in program tracking and measurement was also apparent in

proposed program guidance. The agency has released its FYs 2020–2021 National

Program Guidance. National Program Guidances like the NPMGs are intended to

reflect the current administration’s priorities by setting forth the strategies and

actions for the EPA and its partners to protect human health and the environment.

The FYs 2020–2021 OECA National Program Guidance reintroduces the RRP

program efforts, but the OCSPP guidance continues to not mention the RRP

program, a silence which is not supportive of the RRP program and the agency’s

lead paint program efforts.

The EPA is legislatively mandated to implement the RRP Rule and continues to

have responsibility for ensuring that RRP programs are developed and

implemented and that the RRP program requirements are complied with and

enforced. OCSPP and OECA program offices should work together to improve

coordination to provide a unified and coordinated response to protect the public

from lead hazards related to the RRP program.

EPA Program Offices Inconsistent on What RRP Guidance Regions Should Follow

The current FYs 2018–2019 NPMG for OCSPP and OECA do not provide

specific program objectives and goals nor include measurable outcomes for the

RRP program. OCSPP national program managers suggest the regions follow the

old FYs 2016–2017 NPMG in the absence of specific objectives in the current

NMPG. In contrast, OECA national program managers do not acknowledge the

old NPMG as being in effect in the absence of specific guidance in the current

NMPG.

OCSPP and OECA staff generally referred EPA regions to the old NPMG in the

absence of specific guidance for the lead risk-reduction program. One region

indicated that the lack of guidance was a challenge in implementing the lead-

based paint programs. Further, this region conveyed that the lack of program

guidance sends the message that these programs are not important. Two regions

told the OIG that this hurts employee morale.

EPA Program Guidance Documents Do Not Consistently Support Federal “War on Lead” Action Plan

The EPA, working with other federal agencies, developed a federal strategy to

reduce childhood lead exposure and associated health effects, commonly referred

to in the news media as the “war on lead.” The Federal Action Plan to Reduce

Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts goals describe key

priorities, objectives, potential impacts and actions, many of which are dependent

19-P-0302 15

in part upon the EPA’s lead risk-reduction program implementation and

enforcement responsibilities. However, the current OCSPP program guidance is

silent on lead risks and no longer includes lead risk-reduction as an agency

priority. The FYs 2020–2021 OECA guidance includes a National Compliance

Initiative to reduce children’s exposure to lead, but the guidance does not provide

details on any potential measurable outcomes for the lead risk-reduction program.

The current NPMGs no longer identify lead risk-reduction as a national area of

focus as did the old NPMGs. The current NPMGs no longer provide EPA regions

and authorized states with direction or descriptions about RRP program activities

that should be undertaken, optional activities, priorities for enforcement and

compliance, or inspection expectations. The lack of focus on lead risk-reduction is

inconsistent with goals in the administration’s December 2018 Federal Action

Plan. The action plan promotes goals for identifying lead-exposed children and

improving their health outcomes, as well as communicating effectively with

stakeholders to reduce lead exposures and related health risks.

Program Staff Innovations Not Being Shared

During interviews with regions, some RRP program themes that emerged were the

lack of resources, the need for program investment, and program staff

independently creating solutions to challenges faced. We found that EPA regions

work to create solutions individually but would benefit from the sharing of

regionally developed tools, ideas and approaches to common shared problems.

For example, in our discussions with EPA regions, each shared innovations, such

as the launching of pilot programs to test new ideas, partnerships with external

stakeholders, and other geographic initiatives. One region created a mapping tool

to assist in targeting. Another region created a flowchart of the enforcement

process as well as an electronic checklist that auto-populates estimated penalties

based on the penalty policy guidance. These, along with other examples, appeared

to be solutions to difficulties that multiple regions experience. However, regional

staff said that the regions did not have a consistent forum to share solutions and

issues, such as an electronic bulletin board or information repository. OECA and

OCSPP managers indicated there are regular calls and forums available for the

regional staff that could be used to share innovations.

Regional inspectors seemed to be the most creative in developing additional tools

because of challenges they encountered in the field. While some regions may

work with other regions to a certain extent, the current communication structure is

informal and not supportive of the sharing of these creative tools, ideas, solutions

and approaches. There is potential for a problem that was resolved in one region

being needlessly encountered in another region, with redundancies and wasted

resources being used to resolve it. The EPA regions could benefit from structured

information sharing and collaboration.

19-P-0302 16

Conclusion

Explicit and measurable program objectives, goals and outcomes are needed to

demonstrate whether the RRP program is achieving its intended results to protect

the public by addressing hazards associated with renovation, repair and painting

activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities.

EPA national program managers need to first define the RRP program’s regulated

universe to design targeting strategies for “Lead Hot Spots” and outreach activities.

Also, NPMGs or other appropriate national program guidance must clearly

communicate expectations for RRP program objectives, goals and measurable

outcomes. The measurable outcomes should be useful in determining RRP program

progress, identifying needed changes and providing accountability for program

resources. Better overall communication and sharing of information with regions

and authorized states should also provide additional opportunities for RRP program

effectiveness and efficiencies. Lastly, and more broadly, improvements to the RRP

program should focus on providing additional measurable outcomes and support

for the administration’s Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures

and Associated Health Impacts goals to reduce childhood lead exposures and the

EPA EJ 2020 goal to eliminate disparities in childhood blood lead levels as an

integral part of reducing lead exposure for all people.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance:

1. Identify the regulated universe of Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair

and Painting Rule firms in support of regional targeting strategies, in

coordination with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

2. Establish Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

enforcement objectives, goals and measurable outcomes.

3. Establish management oversight controls to verify that Lead-Based Paint

Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program guidance and expectations

are being met; this may also involve specific reporting requirements for

regions and authorized states and tribes.

4. Establish or identify an effective forum to document and share best

practices and innovations related to the Lead-Based Paint Renovation,

Repair and Painting Rule Program.

19-P-0302 17

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and

Pollution Prevention:

5. Establish specific guidelines for resources and funding allocated to the

Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program that will

further the goals of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead

Exposures and Associated Health Impacts.

6. Establish the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

Program’s objectives, goals and measurable outcomes, such as measures

to demonstrate the effectiveness of program contributions toward

decreasing elevated blood lead levels.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

For Recommendations 1 through 4, the agency believes that the recommendations

have been completed and, thus, no corrective action are necessary. However, for

the following reasons, we do not believe the proposed corrective actions for

Recommendations 1 through 4 meet the intent of the recommendations, and we

consider those recommendations unresolved.

• For Recommendation 1, the EPA does not describe how it will identify the

regulated universe of lead-based paint RRP firms.

• For Recommendation 2, the EPA does not identify specific objectives

linked to measurable outcomes to document the progress for the goals.

• For Recommendation 3, the EPA does not identify management oversight

controls to verify that lead-based paint RRP program guidance and

expectations are being met.

• For Recommendation 4, the EPA does not identify a forum that is used to

document and share best practices and innovations that regional staff

could use to share and document best practices and innovations.

The agency provided acceptable corrective actions and completion dates for

Recommendations 5 and 6. The EPA’s response to Recommendation 5, to issue

guidance for resources and funding that will further the goals of the Federal

Action Plan, met the intent, but not the wording, of the recommendation.

Therefore, we slightly revised the recommendation to enable flexibility in EPA’s

delivery of guidance.

The agency’s response and our additional comments are in Appendix A. In

addition, the agency provided specific suggestions for our consideration, and we

made revisions to the report as appropriate.

19-P-0302 18

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

Rec. No.

Page No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned Completion

Date

Potential Monetary Benefits

(in $000s)

1 16 Identify the regulated universe of Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule firms in support of regional targeting strategies, in coordination with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

U Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

2 16 Establish Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule enforcement objectives, goals and measurable outcomes.

U Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

3 16 Establish management oversight controls to verify that Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program guidance and expectations are being met; this may also involve specific reporting requirements for regions and authorized states and tribes.

U Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

4 16 Establish or identify an effective forum to document and share best practices and innovations related to the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program.

U Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

5 17 Establish specific guidelines for resources and funding allocated to the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program that will further the goals of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts.

R Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

12/31/20

6 17 Establish the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program’s objectives, goals and measurable outcomes, such as measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of program contributions toward decreasing elevated blood lead levels.

R Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

12/31/20

1 C = Corrective action completed.

R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending. U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.

19-P-0302 19

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Report

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the findings and proposed recommendations in the

June 21, 2019 Office of Inspector General’s (OIG’s) Draft Report entitled “Additional Actions

Needed for EPA to Effectively Implement the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and

Painting (RRP) Rule.” The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and the

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) have reviewed the Draft Report

and have met several times with OIG representatives to discuss the RRP program and OIG’s

preliminary recommendations and offer the comments below. The objectives, goals, strategies

and methods of accountability for the RRP program are consistent with OECA’s and OCSPP’s

overall approach for all programs and are commensurate with available resources.

Discussion of Recommendations to OECA:

OECA believes each recommendation identified below has been completed, thereby leaving no

additional corrective actions necessary. Each recommendation is followed by a descriptive

response identifying the specific activities, reports and/or memorandum that fulfil the

requirement.

1. Identify the regulated universe of Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

firms in support of regional targeting strategies, in coordination with the Office of Chemical

Safety and Pollution Prevention.

19-P-0302 20

Response: OECA agrees with the importance of targeting for the Lead-Based Paint RRP

Rule and already uses an appropriate and effective targeting method that does not require the

identification of the regulated universe of firms.

During the rulemaking process for the Lead RRP Rule, the universe of facilities subject to the

Lead RRP Rule was identified by OCSPP for the economic analysis (see 73 FR 21692,

21751-21752 (April 22, 2008); EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049), and OECA believes that an

update is not needed to facilitate targeting for enforcement purposes. OECA’s development

of a new lead mapping tool helps to define the regulated universe of renovators as needed to

target inspections. Additionally, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Compliance

Monitoring Strategy (CMS) and the OECA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2021 National Program

Guidance (NPG) both recommend a geographic approach to address known “Lead Hot

Spots” through a “Place-based Initiative.” With this approach, EPA will focus on ensuring

compliance in areas where our efforts will have the greatest impact to reduce lead exposures,

which does not require collecting additional information on the regulated universe.

2. Establish Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule enforcement objectives,

goals and measurable outcomes.

Response: OECA agrees with the recommendation and already uses several mechanisms

responsive to this recommendation.

First, OECA’s National Compliance Initiative (NCI) memorandum identifies reducing lead

exposure as a high priority and summarizes how the national enforcement and compliance

assurance program will contribute to the agency-wide lead initiative (as part of the Federal

Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposure, https://www.epa.gov/lead/federal-action-

plan-reduce-childhood-lead-exposure). Memorandum, Susan Parker Bodine, FY2020-2023

National Compliance Initiatives (June 7, 2019). Second, OECA’s final FY 2020-2021 NPG

articulates specific RRP enforcement objectives, goals and outcomes. The NPG charges

Regions to prioritize investigations of entities with far-reaching influence on the compliance

landscape and take enforcement as appropriate. For example, Regions are expected to: (a)

conduct geographic initiatives in Lead Hot Spots; (b) focus on firms that operate through

multiple physical locations across the nation; and/or (c) focus on firms that record renovation

work for televised renovation shows.16 See https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/national-

16 For an example of an enforcement action taken under the RRP Rule that was identified through national televised

programming and can have far-reaching impact across the industry, see the Settlement Information Sheet for

Magnolia Waco Properties, LLC on EPA’s website: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/magnolia-waco-properties-

llc-residential-property-renovation-rule-settlement-information.

OIG Response: The agency did not agree or disagree with the recommendation, and the

proposed corrective action does not meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the

EPA does not describe how it will identify the regulated universe of lead-based paint RRP

firms, a CMS requirement for effective targeting strategies. Instead, the proposed corrective

action indicates that the EPA is using a targeting method that does not require the

identification of the regulated universe of firms. We consider Recommendation 1 unresolved.

19-P-0302 21

program-guidances#fy20202021. These approaches align with OECA’s commitment to

contribute to the Agency’s implementation of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood

Lead Exposure.

Furthermore, the NPG and OECA’s elevation of lead to national priority status operate in

conjunction with other mechanisms to promote program progress and accountability. OECA

requires each Region to submit an annual strategic plan with performance commitments

consistent with NPG expectations. Moreover, program support and accountability are further

enhanced through quarterly teleconferences with the OECA AA, and routine

communications between OECA senior leadership (including the Assistant Administrator)

and regional enforcement managers regarding programmatic goals and outcomes. In addition,

OECA captures and reports enforcement outcomes, as well as inspections, in its internal

Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) reporting system. Also, OECA reports

RRP enforcement outcomes publicly via its annual lead-based paint enforcement

accomplishment reports. See e.g., https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-enforcement-

actions-help-protect-vulnerable-communities-lead-based-paint-health-0. These reports

demonstrate the increasing effectiveness of the program. For example, in FY2018, EPA

reduced lead exposures from lead-based paint through 140 enforcement actions, including

117 RRP actions – compared to 75 RRP cases in FY2015.

3. Establish management oversight controls to verify that Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair

and Painting Rule program guidance and expectations are being met; this may also involve

specific reporting requirements for regions and authorized states and tribes.

Response: OECA agrees with the importance of oversight and is currently implementing

controls that are effective for the RRP program and responsive to this recommendation.

As discussed above, OECA requires each Region to submit an annual strategic plan,

including performance commitments. Program support and accountability are further

enhanced through quarterly teleconferences and ongoing communications between OECA

senior leadership (including the Assistant Administrator) and regional enforcement managers

regarding programmatic goals and outcomes. Furthermore, OECA captures and reports

inspections in its internal ICIS reporting system. Also, End-Of-Year reports from state, tribal,

and territorial grantees that receive OECA State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

funding are reviewed annually as a form of oversight control.

OIG Response: The agency agreed with our recommendation, but the proposed corrective

action does not meet the intent of recommendation. The EPA does not identify specific

objectives linked to measurable outcomes to document the progress for the goals. Instead, the

proposed corrective action describes the EPA’s priority of reducing lead exposure and

contributing to the agencywide lead initiative. We consider Recommendation 2 unresolved.

19-P-0302 22

4. Establish or identify an effective forum to document and share best practices and innovations

related to the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program.

Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation and has already established and

identified a variety of effective mechanisms and forums to document and share RRP program

best practices and innovations.

OECA provides a variety of forums and mechanisms that are widely used and effective for

communications with and among the Regions. These mechanisms support the timely

exchange of best practices and innovations that Regions can employ to address issues in the

RRP program. These mechanisms include:

• Monthly calls with lead-based paint enforcement practitioners;

• Quarterly calls with lead-based paint inspectors;

• On-demand access to a vast array of resources (e.g., guidance, models, prototypes,

examples) via the lead-based paint Intranet repository;

• Internal EPA inspector website;

• The lead enforcement practitioners’ mentoring network (information available via the

Intranet site); and

• On-demand communications and ad hoc workgroups for interested practitioners to

address new, emerging and intransient issues.

Discussion of Recommendations to OCSPP:

5. Update its National Program Guidance to establish specific guidelines for resources and

funding allocated to the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program

OIG Response: The agency did not agree or disagree with the recommendation, and the

proposed corrective action does not meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the

EPA does not identify management oversight controls to verify that lead-based paint RRP

program guidance and expectations are being met. As described in the report, the agency was

unable to provide evidence that annual strategic plans were reviewed or information on

regional RRP inspections and compliance activities, as they are one program added into the

overall Annual Commitment System measures being tracked as a part of the lead-based paint

measures. We consider Recommendation 3 unresolved.

OIG Response: The agency agreed with our recommendation, but the proposed corrective

action does not meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the EPA does not

propose to establish or identify a forum that regional staff could use to share and document

best practices and innovations. Instead, the proposed corrective action describes mechanisms

that are not designed to support regional staff sharing best practices and innovations. We

consider Recommendation 4 unresolved.

19-P-0302 23

that will further the goals of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures

and Associated Health Impacts.

Response: OCSPP agrees with this recommendation and already has initiated efforts to this

end. OCSPP is currently drafting a memorandum from OCSPP to the Regions to establish

guidelines for resources and funding that will further the goals of the Federal Action Plan to

Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (“Federal Action Plan”).

This guidance will be commensurate to what is provided in the NPG.

Proposed Corrective Action: By December 31, 2020, OCSPP will establish guidelines for

resources and funding allocated to the Lead-Based Paint RRP Rule Program that will further

the goals of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated

Health Impacts.

6. Establish the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program’s objectives,

goals and measurable outcomes, such as measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of

program contributions toward decreasing elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs).

Response: OCSPP agrees with the recommendation to develop performance measures of the

effectiveness of the Lead RRP program, but has concerns about focusing those efforts on

measuring the RRP program’s specific contributions to decreases in EBLLs. The RRP

program contributes directly to lowering of blood lead levels in the United States by

minimizing the creation of lead dust hazards to which children are exposed in the course of

renovation, repair and painting projects. Given the number of federal agencies involved in

reducing exposure to lead and to the resulting lowered blood lead levels, however, EPA

cannot apportion with any certainty the contribution of the RRP program to declining blood

lead levels. In lieu of this, OCSPP is currently developing other, equally meaningful Lead

RRP performance goals and measures, such as the extent to which EPA Regions are

implementing outreach activities, or the utilization of Regional resources used for Lead RRP

program implementation.

OIG Response: The agency agreed with our recommendation and provided an acceptable

planned corrective action and completion date. The EPA agrees to issue a guidance that will

be commensurate to what is provided in the NPMG. We have revised Recommendation 5 as

follows: “Establish specific guidelines for resources and funding allocated to the Lead-Based

Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program that will further the goals of the

Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts.”

We consider Recommendation 5 resolved with corrective action pending.

19-P-0302 24

Proposed Corrective Action: By December 31, 2020, OCSPP will develop one or more

performance measures to meaningfully demonstrate the effectiveness of the Lead RRP

program’s contributions to the protection of public health and the environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report. If you have any questions or

concerns regarding this response, please contact the OECA Audit Liaison, Gwendolyn Spriggs,

at (202) 564-2439, or the OCSPP Audit Liaison, Janet Weiner, at (202) 564-2309.

cc: Larry Starfield, OECA

Patrick Traylor, OECA

Charlotte Bertrand, OCSPP

David Hindin, OECA/OC

Rosemarie A. Kelley, OECA/OCE

Karin Koslow, OECA/OCE

Greg Sullivan, OECA/OCE

Lauren Kabler, OECA/OCE

Rochele Kadish, OECA/OC

Martha Segall, OECA/OC

Rick Duffy, OECA/OC

Susan Laessig, OECA/OC

Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA/OAP

Janet Weiner, OCSPP

Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5

David Gray, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6

OIG Response: The agency agreed with our recommendation and provided an acceptable

planned corrective action and completion date. We consider Recommendation 6 resolved

with corrective action pending.

19-P-0302 25

Appendix B

Distribution

The Administrator

Assistant Deputy Administrator

Associate Deputy Administrator

Chief of Staff

Deputy Chief of Staff

Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Management, Office of Chemical Safety and

Pollution Prevention

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Administrator

Director, Office of Children’s Health Protection, Office of the Administrator

Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Chemical Safety and

Pollution Prevention

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Regions 1–10